And yet they spend voluminous amounts of time and effort in producing pro-choice materials and propaganda. They send speakers across the nation, and distribute large quantities of material defending their cause.
All it would take is a single citation from their own publication, proving that Mary Calderone said no such thing. Their silence on this matter is deafening.
That’s why I spoke about revenue, rather than profit. Like it or not, abortion provides a huge source of revenue for Planned Parenthood, and so they have a large financial stake in promoting abortion.
That’s why I spoke of VESTED interest, rather than mere interest alone. Unlike Planned Parenthood, the National Right to Life Committee has nothing to gain financially from the abortion issue. If anything, ultimately defeating abortion would put most (if not all) of their people out of work, and so these people are actually working against their own financial interests!
With Planned Parenthood, there is a likely financial motive. With the NRLC, their is no clear financial motivation, especially since it is a largely volunteer-run organization. So if we’re going to cast aspersions on the reliability of their assertions, Planned Parenthood fares more poorly in that regard.
I don’t know about here, but it was forbidden in Ireland to leave the state to obtain an abortion. (see here , look down for the X case. Basically the state could forbid someone from leaving the country to get an abortion where it was legal, except, by this case, when there was a risk of suicide.
I’m not sure if a state could enforce this ban, but the federal government could, I would guess.
Abortion was legal in New York before Roe v Wade. I vaguely remember that there was cross-state line travel for abortions, but I don’t know if there were any laws against this or any court cases. Anyone?
But even then it makes no sense. I can’t be tried in CA for a “murder” I commit in OR. I must be tried in OR. So, if an abortion is performed in a state where it’s legal, the person cannot be charged with murder in another state. It just can’t be done.
It’s not my argument, John. I don’t think the states will try that … political suicide even in the red states. The first time you see an attractive white woman crying as she’s led off to a jail cell for trying to get an abortion, politicians will be thrown out of office in droves.
Look at my post to John. They’re not mad now, but as soon as anti-abortion laws get enforced and start harming attractive young white women, you’ll see a backlash. It’ll be irresistible eye candy for the media.
And National Right to Life does the same thing on the other side of the issue.
I’m sorry, JThunder. If you honestly believe that National Right to Life has any claim to neutrality in the abortion debate, or is anything like a reasonable and unbiased source for quotations about Planned Parenthood, I don’t think we have enough common ground to argue about it.
I didn’t mean to imply that it was. Sorry if it came off that way…
As fractured as this nation is on the issue of abortion, we’ve made a very comfortable peace wtih the status quo. Roe V Wade being overturned would be the best thing for the Democrats short of Bush admitting he lied about Iraq!
Even if 50% of people support choice, I think a far fewer amount of people would actually be pissed off if abortion were illegal. Polls tend to be ideals, theoreticals and not necessarily how people would react in real life.
It was “harder for physicians to do it” before Roe v. Wade, when, as you admit, most illegal abortions weren’t dangerous because they were performed by . . . physicians. I’m not following your logic.
I never said that they were NEUTRAL. What I said is that they have no VESTED INTEREST. There is a world of difference between the two.
A US factory worker may have a vested interest in opposing offshoring, for example, whereas a doctor or attorney generally would not. The doctor or attorney may take a stand on that matter-- in other words, be non-neutral – without having any particular vested interest in the outcome.
Well, she’s dead, It was probably before the internet was big, and she was known to be a controversial figure. Hardky a group making a claim, more like an individual. Also, it looks like Anne Neville is following Mary Calderone’s example.
I realize that. But what I am saying is that there are reasons other than financial reasons why someone might support a particular view. Religious belief, for example, can be a very powerful example of a non-financial reason to have a particular view on a subject. People often do have beliefs that work against their own financial interests- wealthy Democrats who oppose Bush’s tax cuts, for example.
Regardless of why someone has a particular viewpoint, an organization dedicated to promoting that viewpoint is not likely to be a neutral and unbiased source for information about an organization with the opposing viewpoint. That’s my point. I wouldn’t uncritically accept a quote from the Democratic National Committee about what Republicans do or don’t believe, either, regardless of whether the Republicans had or hadn’t rebutted that specific quote.
Which is exactly what could happen in states that ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. States could pass laws making the pregnant woman subject to prosection.
Doctors performin Abortions for money certainly meets the standard of substantially affecting interstate commerce. I’d say it has much more effect, by orders of magnitude, than a very small number of people growing a very small amount of marijuana. By that reasoning abortion falls under the powers of Congress and can be regulated as they see fit.
Don’t know about gutting of SDP - it would depend on the decision.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the regulation of abortion to the states, as I mentioned.
Segregation, no. I would have thought that was obvious.
The rest? I suppose we could, but I doubt if such things are going to get very far. In general, any right not in the Constitution could only be established by the states, or the people, as the Tenth Amendment states.
I think you are assuming that unjust laws can only be addressed by having the courts overturn them. Obviously this is not the case - a legislature can rescind a law, and is more responsive to the popular will than an unelected judge. So if you wanted to have a China One Child law, you would have to convince 51% of the Senate and House.
The ideal is that the Constitution explicitly establishes certain of the basic rights of the people. Laws not in conflict with those basic rights are passed by the legislature. If the people decide they want to recognize another right, they amend the Constitution, or merely have their representatives pass laws establishing that newly recognized right.
You may be making the same mistake a lot of folks make talking about Roe v. Wade. Overturning Roe v. Wade (insert gasps of horror at the thought here :D) would not “make abortion illegal”. It is not a simple binary, where the Court turns that faucet on and off. Roe v. Wade made it illegal for states to regulate abortion. Allowing them to do so again would free the differing regions of the country to make different decisions based on the will of the people of their state.
Which would be fine with me. “Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” as Mao supposedly said. This would be (IMO) the solution least offensive to the basic notion of limited government, especially limited federal government. The Constitution doesn’t address abortion. Therefore it seems to me illicit for the Supremes to pretend it does.